Rules for Chord Doubling (and Spacing): A
Reply To Wibberley

KEYWORDS: pedagogy, doubling, spacing, rules, chord

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: We thank David Temperley and David Butler for helpful
feedback on an earlier draft.

ABSTRACT: In MTO 10.2, we systematically tested common-practice "Rules for
Chord Doubling (and Spacing)." We concluded that, while most of the commonly
taught rules are not particularly helpful, two are definitely worth teaching:
students should be taught to avoid doubling tendency tones, and to favor wide
spacing in the bass. In the current issue of MTO, Wibberley expresses an
ambivalent attitude toward rules, and questions our methods and results.
Wibberley's criticism, however, is based on a sample of just 10 chord pairs,
which (as it turns out) are unrepresentative of the 3603 chord pairs in our
analysis. We clarify our methods and results, respond to some questions raised
by Wibberley and other readers, and discuss the merits and limits of musical
rules.

Received August 2004

Summary of Aarden and von Hippel (2004)

[1] In the last issue of MTO(1),
we described a method for testing rules of chord doubling and spacing. In this
method, a "composed" chord, extracted from the works of Bach, Haydn, and Mozart,
is paired with a "random" chord sampled from the set of all possible chords that
satisfy certain constraints.(2) Both the "composed" and "random" chords are then
inspected for features that are consistent with doubling and spacing rules. If a
rule is correct, then rule-consistent features should be more common in the
"composed" chords than in the "random" chords.

[2] It may be helpful to imagine that the "random" chords were written by
students who have not yet been taught doubling or spacing rules. In this
scenario, our task is to differentiate between "student practice" (random
chords) and "historical practice" (composed chords). Our goal is to determine
which rules will bring these two groups closer together.

[3] Two well-known rules were verified by this approach. Compared to the
random chords,

The composed chords were almost four times less likely to double a
tendency tone.

The composed chords were one-and-a-half times as likely to have their
widest space between the two lowest voices.

These results tend to favor the view that Bach, Haydn, and Mozart avoided
doubling tendency tones, and favored wide spacing in the bass.

[4] Our conclusion noted that both these preferences are consistent with the
goal of creating a transparent musical texture with distinct melodic lines.(3)
In particular, the rule against doubling tendency tones can be related to the
avoidance of parallel octaves, and the preference for open spacing in the bass
is probably related to the auditory system's poorer resolution in the bass
region.

[5] Other rules proved less convincing. Some rules were redundant with the
two given above, and some distinguished only weakly between composed and random
chords. We were not surprised to see many rules fail, since the doubling
literature describes a large number of rules with unclear theoretical
motivation.

[6] On balance, our results suggest that two of the traditional rules are
valid and useful summaries of strong common-practice preferences. Other rules
are less helpful, and should probably be struck from the curriculum.

Sampling Variation

[7] Wibberley (this issue) expresses a skeptical view of theoretical rules.
In a sample of 10 chord pairs, he reports that a weighted set of rules
discriminated composed from random chords only 50% of the time. By contrast,
blind guessing identified the composed chord 60% of the time.

[8] These results are true for the sample of 10 chord pairs that Wibberley
examined, but these chords are not very representative. Our results, by contrast, were based on systematic analysis
of 3603 chord pairs. In 70% of these pairs, a weighted set of rules
discriminated correctly between the composed and random chords. Blind guessing
would discriminate only 50% of all pairs.

[9] The salient issue here is sampling variation: if you take a
different sample, you get different results. In Wibberley's sample of 10 chords,
our model was 50% accurate, and blind guesses were 60% correct. In most samples,
however, our model would do better, and guessing would do worse. Readers can
check this for themselves by using our paper's interface(4) to select several
samples of chords pair. The model's accuracy will fluctuate from sample to
sample, but the fluctuation will be around an average level of 70%. Likewise,
blind guessing will fluctuate around its long-term average of 50%.(5)

[10] Rather than comparing the model's performance to the performance of one
reader on 10 chord pairs, it is more revealing to compare the model's
performance to the performance of all readers who have tried to discriminate
composed from random chords. As of this writing, 137 readers have tried this
discrimination task, and their average accuracy is 57%. Among the 47 readers
with PhDs in music, the average accuracy was 58%. In light of these results for
human experts, the model's accuracy of 70% seems remarkably good.

Incorrect Rules and Incorrect Answers�but No Incorrect Chords

[11] Much of Wibberley's comment seems animated by the fear that we are using
theoretical rules to evaluate musical practice. If a chord violates a
theoretical rule, that is, Wibberley fears that we will label the chord as
"incorrect."

[12] What we are doing, however, is just the opposite: we use musical
practice to evaluate theoretical rules. If a composer's chords tend to violate
some rule, we consider the rule, not the chords, to be incorrect.

[13] Since there are no "incorrect" chords, our distinction between
"composed" and "random" chords bears repeating. According to the definition in
our paper, a "random" chord is not (as Wibberley suggests) an improper or
unusable chord. It is rather a chord sampled, at random, from the set of all
possible chords that satisfy certain constraints.

[14] Wibberley points out that several of our "random" chords resemble chords
that he can find in chorale harmonizations by Bach. This is true. The fact that
a chord was randomly sampled does not prevent a similar chord from being used in
a famous composition. Our focus, however, is not on whether a chord occurs, but
on how often it occurs. On average, "random" chords occur less often in the
repertory than do "composed" chords which were actually sampled from music by
Bach, Haydn, and Mozart. And if chords that fit a rule occur more often among
the composed chords, then we can infer the rule has merit. This is why rules of
musical practice should be helpful for discriminating composed from random
chords.

[15] Because "random" chords can be quite plausible, "composed" and "random"
chords cannot be discriminated with 100% accuracy. That is, a chord that we
generated randomly will sometimes be taken, quite reasonably, for a chord that
we sampled from works by Bach, Haydn, and Mozart. In our paper, we described
such failures of discrimination as "incorrect" answers.(6) We emphasize that the
word "incorrect" refers only to the discrimination--not to the chords, the model,
or the reader. The reader's understanding may be sound, and one or both chords
may be quite typical of the pertinent repertoire--but the discrimination can
still fail.

[16] The impossibility of 100% discrimination puts our model's performance in
a positive light. Our model discriminates with 70% accuracy, and while this is
30% short of perfect (as Wibberley points out), 70% may be close to the highest
level possible. As noted above, 70% is certainly higher than the average
accuracy of expert readers.

Rules and Context

[17] Just as some "random" chords can appear typical of musical practice,
some "composed" chords can appear rather unusual. Wibberley highlights a chord
from a Bach chorale which, taken out of context, seems to have odd spacing. He
points out, however, that this chord looks like an excellent choice when
returned to its natural surroundings.

[18] We do not dispute this. Our approach is designed to highlight certain
similarities among composed chords, whereas Wibberley has chosen to highlight
the unique circumstances of a particular chord choice. The difference is merely
one of emphasis.

[19] To clarify our position, we agree that each chord chosen by Bach, Haydn,
and Mozart serves a particular purpose that is best understood by viewing the
chord in context.

[20] We also note, however, that a great many chords serve the shared
purpose of creating a transparent musical texture with distinct melodic lines.
This purpose is well-served by practices codified in certain musical "rules."
Among those rules are the two highlighted in our study: (1) the avoidance of
doubling tendency tones, and (2) the preference for putting the widest space
between the two lowest voices.

[21]Although not inviolate, these rules provide a first approximation to
common-practice chord-writing, and a glimpse of insight into the aesthetic goals of
common-practice music. Well-tested rules can help students to understand and
imitate the music of the past.

Addendum: Links

[22] Wibberley raises two technical issues that are tangential to the main
thread of his paper. We address these points in the following links:

2. Each "random" chord is constrained to have the same
pitch-classes and inversion as the "composed" chord with which it is paired. The
random and composed chords also have similar range constraints. Further detail
on the construction of random chords is provided in Aarden and von Hippel,
section 4.2. Return to text

3. For a discussion of these goals and their relationship
to musical rules, see David Huron, "Tone and Voice: A Derivation of the Rules of
Voice-leading from Perceptual Principles," Music Perception, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2001), pp.
1-64, and citations therein.Return to text

5. In writing our paper, we tried to anticipate the
issue of sampling variation. Our pertinent comments are reproduced at the top of
Wibberley's Figure 1, where we write that our model's "performance may be better
or worse than average, depending on the particulars of the sample. Your
accuracy, too, may differ from its average level." Return to text

6. One advantage of online publication is that, even after
publication, we can edit language that readers find confusing. In examples of
the discrimination task, our original paper described the composed chord as "the
correct answer." Since this language was confusing to several readers (including
Wibberley), we now describe the same chord simply as "the composed chord." (In
Aarden and von Hippel, see the sidebar labeled "Can you beat the computer?") Return to text

Copyright Statement

Copyright � 2004 by the Society for Music Theory.All rights reserved.

[1] Copyrights for individual items published in Music Theory Online (MTO)
are held by their authors. Items appearing in MTO may be saved and stored
in electronic or paper form, and may be shared among individuals for purposes of
scholarly research or discussion, but may not be republished in any form,
electronic or print, without prior, written permission from the author(s), and advance
notification of the editors of MTO.

[2] Any redistributed form of items published in MTO must include the
following information in a form appropriate to the medium in which the items are
to appear:

This item appeared in Music Theory Online in [VOLUME #, ISSUE #] on
[DAY/MONTH/YEAR]. It was authored by [FULL NAME, EMAIL ADDRESS], with whose written
permission it is reprinted here.

[3] Libraries may archive issues of MTO in electronic or paper form for
public access so long as each issue is stored in its entirety, and no access fee
is charged. Exceptions to these requirements must be approved in writing by the
editors of MTO, who will act in accordance with the decisions of the Society
for Music Theory.

This document and all portions thereof are protected by U.S. and international
copyright laws. Material contained herein may be copied and/or distributed for research
purposes only.